On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> With the removal of the incomplete detection of the tracer going away
> in ptrace_stop, ptrace_stop always sleeps in schedule after
> ptrace_freeze_traced succeeds. Modify ptrace_check_attach to
> warn if wait_task_inactive fails.
Oh. Again, I don't understand the changelog. If we forget about RT,
ptrace_stop() will always sleep if ptrace_freeze_traced() succeeds.
may_ptrace_stop() has gone.
IOW. Lets forget about RT
> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -266,17 +266,9 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct
> *child, bool ignore_state)
> }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> - if (!ret && !ignore_state) {
> - if (!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)) {
> - /*
> - * This can only happen if may_ptrace_stop() fails and
> - * ptrace_stop() changes ->state back to TASK_RUNNING,
> - * so we should not worry about leaking __TASK_TRACED.
> - */
> - WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(child->__state) == __TASK_TRACED);
> - ret = -ESRCH;
> - }
> - }
> + if (!ret && !ignore_state &&
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)))
> + ret = -ESRCH;
>
> return ret;
> }
Why do you think this change would be wrong without any other changes?
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
